The truth…? It is really the things that possess us; with all their ingenuity and occasional subliminal cynicism.

In their cautious and Carthusian underhand way they can even change our feelings, our desires, to cause a slow, clear division of consciousness in the mind.

Our mind; a slow and steady process, made up of expectations, distances, corporeity, eroticism, anxieties and paradoxes that contaminate our rationality with morbid states of controlled hallucination.

Because we absolutely need these things, as a second chance; a parallel goal to bridge small and serious deficiencies that our soul, sometimes ruthless and uncompromising, leaves us barely glimpsing in the darkness of our silence; where we do not always find a just response.

How many times have we morbidly preserved objects, often unnecessarily, owned by people more or less dear to us? How many times have we decided to replace those items by making them much more human, giving them feelings, emotions, desires? Because things do not lack a real appeal, that certain charisma that can transform us into victims of fashion, shopping, consumerism, that has rendered ourselves passive superstars through a complex system for the dissemination of information and advertisements which are disproportionately disturbing and artificial, because we would not be able to survive without the goods we produce, sell, use, sanctify.

Thus objects and consumer products of all kinds are able to exercise a very strong and dominant psycho-emotional power, especially influential and powerful because of our own strength of will and awareness.

Just as in the Eighties, Swatch were made from synthetic plastic materials, poor only in appearance, they have continued to dominate with their indiscreet charm and have since developed the concept of status over others (both more expensive and precious), including approaches and perceptions of stimuli towards new aesthetics and mutations of selfishness resulting in a new affinity in relationship between soul-person-object-intimacy. In fact it almost radically reverses the threshold between everyday reality and migration to a second life parallel to the one we live every day.

These economic and social pressures help us to (re)produce the illusion of placing our total dependence on objects that, thanks to our constant dedication and care for them, have learned to develop their own essence, their own individual personality, visibly natural and immediate.

We liked the Swatch and we still like it, in the evolution of its ten thousand ‘skins’, as we could and still manage to see every little cog and internal mechanism through a myriad of kaleidoscopic stylistic experiments and adjustments. So, finally, one of the own our dearest items had gained a status, a lifestyle, a way of being which is completely new and unique, absolutely affordable within every budget.

Today we cannot even resist the charm of a reflective and transparent mannequin in a shop window. Today it seems essential for us to decontextualise and to reproduce every product as if it were a new subject of art in progress, which we have moved from being On Sale in shop windows to being resettled in other contexts, where they become a real superstar which speaks a truly universal language, without further linguistic translation or cultural modifications.

In fact, Jacques Seguela, a well known French advertising character, always said: "Try to love your product, make it a superstar, give it a body, a soul and all your passion".

One thing is certain: there are different ways to interpret and perceive passion for certain things. For things in general. A humble rubber soccer ball, lobster colored, can become as important as the most famous Coke bottle designed by Raymond Loewy which, rather than being a simple container, became for several decades a real superstar, although we are all well aware of the devastating side effects of some soft drinks or electronic gadgets.

This is similar to a relationship with electronic chicks or reptiles that are sensitive to both feelings and niceties because they are produced from sophisticated micro-software which are no less toxic in their conditioning of physiological addictions and responses to objects and things.

In the end, everything becomes very tolerable, because the things that we usually end up loving, become guarantors of our confidence in the promise of those new criteria of social belonging, imbued with a deep and subtle system in which every object of desire in an almost total and, in some cases, absolute disappearance of its original function, continues to exercise a precisely customized power over all of us.

So the question is: "Do I really need that particular thing? Not really, but I simply want it! ", which is the final statement of a truth evident to all of us: that things actually own us, almost totally.